Wednesday, February 08, 2017

I have to say I like "The Cell" better than "Donald J. Trump And The Deep State, Part 1". It is high time to retire the impossibly vague 'deep state', which doesn't even help in Turkey any more.

"Against omniscience" is ridiculous (although Seymour may still be traumatized by his run-in with real power). What I want to see is empirical data, not overarching theories, and I want to see named names (which we have in spades if you look, for example, at the Clinton donor list). I'm a huge fan of carefully examining those actions by the state that clearly are not in the national interests of the state, and identifying the specific manipulation (bribes and blackmail) that must be going on. What happens on Iran, where anything more than the current hot air is clearly not in American national interests and would utterly contradict MAGA, will be a key piece of evidence.

"The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency". The problem with the theory that if X wins, X must have all along been the choice of the Powers That Be, is that it tells us nothing.

Note that "The Cell" names factional names (Scott does too, but it is mainly Koch, and Part 2, which I had high hopes for, falls into Clintonista Russia-blaming). The current trouble with Trumpology is that we don't yet know if the people around Trump, including his cabinet, will have any influence at all, or whether the USA is now a one-man band. In any event, there is not ever one power group, which always wins, but rather a collection of competing factions, some of whom fail to get their way. As strange as it may seem to some conspiracists at a much finer level that the 'Illuminati', we can actually eventually identify who these groups are, and who is winning. Of course, as we all know all too well, naming the real names is always subject to extreme push-back.

I have to say I like "The Cell" better than "Donald J. Trump And The Deep State, Part 1". It is high time to retire the impossibly vague 'deep state', which doesn't even help in Turkey any more.

"Against omniscience" is ridiculous (although Seymour may still be traumatized by his run-in with real power). What I want to see is empirical data, not overarching theories, and I want to see named names (which we have in spades if you look, for example, at the Clinton donor list). I'm a huge fan of carefully examining those actions by the state that clearly are not in the national interests of the state, and identifying the specific manipulation (bribes and blackmail) that must be going on. What happens on Iran, where anything more than the current hot air is clearly not in American national interests and would utterly contradict MAGA, will be a key piece of evidence.

"The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency". The problem with the theory that if X wins, X must have all along been the choice of the Powers That Be, is that it tells us nothing.

Note that "The Cell" names factional names (Scott does too, but it is mainly Koch, and Part 2, which I had high hopes for, falls into Clintonista Russia-blaming). The current trouble with Trumpology is that we don't yet know if the people around Trump, including his cabinet, will have any influence at all, or whether the USA is now a one-man band. In any event, there is not ever one power group, which always wins, but rather a collection of competing factions, some of whom fail to get their way. As strange as it may seem to some conspiracists at a much finer level that the 'Illuminati', we can actually eventually identify who these groups are, and who is winning. Of course, as we all know all too well, naming the real names is always subject to extreme push-back.